Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

613 questions · 659 findings · 29 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 186 · 28.2%GRADE not reported 294 · 44.6%Very low 87 · 13.2%Low 68 · 10.3%Moderate 21 · 3.2%High 3 · 0.5%

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Decalcification · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
    To end of appliance treatment
    It was surprising that decalcification rates were not reported as a secondary outcome, as clinically it is suggested that GIC is protective against decalcification; the…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Twin Block functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax,… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Duration of treatment · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI)

Patient satisfaction · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in patient satisfaction compared with fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Activator functional appliance vs Prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Activator functional appliance showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

R-appliance vs Anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

R-appliance showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Self concept · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… showed no clear difference in self concept compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance vs no treatment

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance vs no treatment

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Activator functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Activator functional appliance led to lower final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear may leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… probably leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Removable functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chemical cured composite vs Light cured composite

Bracket (bond) failure · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
    To end of appliance treatment
    Additional Table 1 summarises the proportion of bracket failures for a CC and LC composite with two different bracket bases (O'Brien 1989). The paper reported the results of applying a Mantel-Haenszel Chi2 test which…
    1 study · 52 participants
    GRADE not reported